What we are attempting to do.

[nobbynobbs]

Below is the copy of a message I have sent to Jeremy and via mtn-man to try to open some level of negotiations to try and resolve the present problems.

This was only posted on monday so it is not a great surprise that I have yet to get a reply but I hope it clarifies that things are being attempted. I would stress that I am not posting this now to brgin any bad feeling towards the groundspeak authorities, quite the opposite, I hope that this will show people that we are attempting to sort the problem out before it gets out of control.


"Hi, I do not doubt that you have received more than a few messages from cachers from the United Kingdom in light of the recent events.



At the outset I would stress that while I am a member of the Geocaching Association of Great Britain this post is entirely off my own back.



As I understand the current situation a decision has been made by yourself and others that the United Kingdom has been less strict with it's reviewing and forum moderation than you would normally expect on one of the many American forums. As such they were told to become much more stringent and follow the guidelines with less lee way. They have then resigned due to that and other related actions .



I do understand your thoughts that it is better for everyone to be operating under the exact same rules but I don't think that it really needs to happen. Has anyone actually complained that we are given more leniency or are allowed more freedom? Is there any commercial reason that you feel all the countries need to conform? (totally understandable if so)

The thing is that both Australia and the Netherlands, to the best of my knowledge, have a certain level of freedom to act within their own set of guidelines while still remaining under the umbrella of groundspeak. Could you please explain why this could not be done for us?



The question over recommending public houses I believe has been put to you but I will reitterate. The Public house holds a unique place for the british people as I hope you found out on your recent trip to an event that under the present rules would not be allowed unless I an incorrect?

They are places where families go before and after walks/ caches etc. and form an integral part of the British culture. I do not think the same applies to similar establishments in the USA. But like any establishment some are more friendly towards families and weary travellers than others. I am aware that a large number of cachers welcome information as to whether a local public house falls into the nice category or not when travelling a long distance to go caching. So while in the strictest sense that does fall foul of the commercial guideline it is welcomed to the UK cachers.

The counter argument is that once one is allowed there will be a flood of "go to this shop or this resturant" but that is where flexibility comes into play. I can say with certainty that when a UK reviewer makes a ruling it has been accepted by the UK cacher population as they have shown consistancy and fairness in their application of the guidelines.



The sum of this argument is that some negotiation should be allowed to solve this current discord. It is my belief that if the UK reviewers and moderators were allowed to continue with their fair and firm interpretation of the guidelines with the UK holding a slightly detached position. We have seperate laws along an often common theme. We have a similar culture. But we do not always totally agree with how we each do things, surely some level of uniqueness and originality should be welcomed not suppressed?




At the moment there is a great deal of resentment being directly towards GC.com by a normally calm happy group of people. You have to remember that before all this occured it was very rare that there was anything on our forums that required any moderation. They are a very calm and relaxed affair usually.



I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider my points and see if you could show the British community that you are able to reconsider a mistake and rectify it before lasting damage is done to the trust that has built up over the relatively few years that our hobby has existed. I do not think that the hobby would suffer in fact diversity would strengthen it. Your UK customer base needs some reassurance and flexibility not a strict rule.



Thank you for your time."

[Mrs Blorenge]

A polite and reasonable letter, in my opinion. Let's see what happens :)

Lucilla

[The Molinnis Crew]

Originally posted by Mrs Blorenge@Apr 29 2008, 09:01 PM
A polite and reasonable letter, in my opinion. Let's see what happens :)

Lucilla


Agree with Mrs B, well put and thought out.

[The Wilkerson Family]

Very well put. It will be interesting to see when and if there is a reply.

Richard

[dodgydaved]

Well put Matt, and if you get a result my (our) actions will not have been in vane.

Dave

[Bill D (wwh)]

Yes, very well put indeed, Matt, and I hope you get a result...!

[Gushoneybun]

I agree with the others, The email was clear and without emotion so in the very least is due a polite and decent reply.
Well done :applause:

[molfrew-mosstoad]

Very well put mate, heres hoping for a result

[gazooks]

Nicely put - lets see if you get a reply.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Please be patient whilst waiting for a reply :o Jeremy is a very busy man and is not always in the office. There might be a possibility that he's on a business trip ;) and if so he won't see the letter until his return.

[[MF]taz]

There might be a possibility that he's on a business trip

Is that code for "He may be busy geocaching" ?? :socool:

[moote01]

Very well written Matt :socool:

[sTeamTraen]

Warning: this is a very long post! I've attempted to structure it a bit, but it may appear to ramble a little. Sorry for that.

Most of the people reading this will have seen my posts in the UK forum on geocaching.com. Some of you also know that I'm one of the reviewers for France. I hope that my not being a current UK resident (I left the UK some years ago) will not disqualify me from contributing. I hope, also, that the people who I know from the UK Geochat will understand those points where I take a different view from them. This post is being made entirely at my own initiative and it is not a "plant" for Groundspeak; it certainly doesn't represent the views of anyone but myself.

As Greg (mtn-man) suggested in the geocaching.com forum, I don't know if you will get a reply from Groundspeak, but if you do, it quite likely won't be from Jeremy, but from Bryan, aka Rothstafari. Groundspeak is not a huge multinational, but it does run like any other company, with internal communication channels and all their associated issues, and Bryan is the person in charge of this sort of thing. He also has a rather more diplomatic style than Jeremy (older hands who remember some of Jeremy's posts when he was more active in the forums will know what I'm talking about).

Having talked to people in Groundspeak over the past few days, and knowing quite a few of them personally ("In Real Life"), here's one thing I can tell you for sure: they are very upset - as in "personally cut up about it" - about the loss of Lactodorum and Eckington. Their communication style may not always reflect it (how do you really convey "upset" in a mail?), but that's the truth. The lackeys are good people and they view the volunteers as not far short of family. Like any family, things get said, things get regretted, sometimes things take a long time to heal. But this is not some kind of autocratic, jackbooted regime; nor are there people in sharp suits and braces pacing up and down and shouting "f*** 'em". (The tone of the debate over the past week could have benefited from a wider acceptance of this.) Neither is Groundspeak on some kind of a mission to silence criticism. I challenge you to find another commercial organisation in the world which allows as much criticism of itself on its own Web site, provided it's done openly and in a civilised tone. (Calling people "Nazis" does not meet that criterion; nor does using sock puppets. Those are the only things for which people had their posting rights suspended, AFAIK. Incidentally, at least one target of the "Nazis" comment is Jewish.)

Nobody at Groundspeak imagines that they are going to become millionaires in short order; in fact it's hard to see how the founders could sell out, because the database has very little value other than for geocaching. Compared to other Web services, geocaching.com collects almost no information about you. This is a Good Thing™ from our point of view and something which is widely underestimated. Groundspeak has always been more about a bunch of guys doing their own thing - with all the pluses and minuses which that entails - than making a load of money. (After nearly eight years of this game, Jeremy's office is about 13 feet square.)

Back to the issue which brought us here: the fundamental problem from Groundspeak's point of view is the same as for any other company whose business model is built around user-generated content, namely, where to draw the line. Let's face it, everyone would like things, in Burger King's phrase, "your way", but Burger King won't give you foie gras on your Whopper or let you lie on the floor to eat it. And even YouTube has standards sometimes, it seems.

Here's an example: in any given month you can be sure that American military personnel will submit for review, caches with some or all of the following themes:
- "Support our troops in their fight against evil Muslim terrorists"
- "Support our troops in their fight to protect our country"
- "Support our brave troops in Iraq"
- "Support our troops"

After much discussion among the volunteer community, it has been decided that every single one of those is off-limits, not least because the easiest place to draw a line is through the point marked "zero". This gets Jeremy some very, very nasty hate mail. It gets the poor support people at Groundspeak some very unpleasant phone calls. So this company, which many people in Europe like to imagine as some kind of evil American multinational, regularly gets called unpatriotic, and worse, by Americans. (Incidentally, Jeremy is a former serving member of the US Air Force.)

Similarly, you can't have a cache which invites people to something as inoffensive as giving blood or looking for a missing child. This is not because Groundspeak are Jehovah's witnesses or child murderers. It comes down to a very simple philosophy: the site is about geocaching. Nothing else. Any advertising or promotions should be paid-for and should help support the site. It's probably a stronger philosophy for being simple, but of course it has to work in the real world. The question is whether anything less simple would give fewer problems.

One of the strong points of the UK caching community, unlike many in the US and some in Europe, is that historically there has not too much paranoid searching for minor inconsistencies among listings ("you wouldn't publish my cache because of XYZ guideline problem, but here's one which you published last week which in my opinion is ten times worse", optionally followed by "therefore you are oppressing me"). Undoubtedly this has to do with the stable and consistent reviewing style over the years, plus perhaps a pragmatic aspect to the national character.

However, when you don't have a problem, it can sometimes be difficult to understand when other people have it. (For example: as an English person, who didn't find out what a Catholic was until about the age of 14, it took me a very long time to begin to understand what the whole Celtic v Rangers thing was about.) Well, it turns out that Groundspeak has to handle a substantial number of calls and e-mails from people in many countries and states who consider that they have been personally wronged by decisions made by volunteers.

There is also the specific local "problem" of the common language which means that, when American cachers are looking for examples of inconsistency with which to beat up Groundspeak, they will scour the forums and the cache titles and listings, and they are far more likely to come up with something if it's written in English. Had the UK forums and caches all been written in German, maybe none of this would have been noticed. Still, the world is as it is, and at least UK cachers can understand pretty much every word that's on the site (occasional discussions about "color" and "-ized" notwithstanding); the absence of multilingual versions is a huge issue for other countries.

As I mentioned in a public forum post, there is no realistic alternative to the volunteer system. Given the peanuts (zero) that Groundspeak pays the volunteers, I think they get some pretty good people, but as anyone who has ever tried to organise volunteer labour in any sphere knows, there's only so much you can ask of them. Groundspeak got a pretty tough reminder of that last week, and you can be sure that they will learn from it. But any compromises which are made, will have to take into account the trade-off at the other end. You will already have seen one or two posts from people saying "what's the big deal with finding the pub, round here we have to do it from coordinates" and the last thing Groundspeak will want is to have dozens of US volunteers complaining that everyone wants an exception for the Historic Roadside Inns of Massachusetts or whatever.

(By the way, as quite a lot of people seem not to know, the commercial guideline is not, in fact, a blanket ban. It basically states that if you want to mention the name of a business, your reviewer will refer you to Groundspeak. This is, among other reasons, to save the reviewers from flak; if the business name is denied, they can say it wasn't them who denied it. In fact the whole review system is set up so that, if the cacher wishes, pretty well every decision can be confirmed by Groundspeak. If you've never had experience of that, it's because you've had reviewers with good communication skills.)

I personally think that consistency is something which you can only maintain so far. The solution which I instinctively prefer is some form of regional (or national) guidelines, to be established in conjunction with local/national associations. But there's probably well over a hundred associations worldwide. Some countries or states have more than one, and they don't always agree on very much. How much time will it cost to set up something which is fair for everyone? How many disappointed associations will withdraw their cooperation because they didn't, say, get the 0.1 mile proximity limit reduced in their very densely populated area? What will the consequences of allowing regional guidelines be in three years time? They will probably be minimal from our end, but Groundspeak will feel the full effect, and it's their mortgage payments, rather than ours, which depend on it.

There may be a clue to a way forward in this Seattle area newspaper article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2004101493_groundspeak02n.html)

"That was the biggest surprise," said Irish. "People actually wanting to get together and talk about their experiences, and these organizations that have been created around geocaching."

Jeremy knows a lot about GPS technology, and the Web, and running a tech company, and even, yes, geocaching. But I suspect that he may have underestimated how damn important it is to many people. It is to me - I can honestly say it has literally changed my life - and I'm pretty sure it is to Peter, Dave, and Dave, and everyone else who's made it this far through this post. The tone of the posts in the last week has reminded me at times of the anger - which I've witnessed first hand - of people faced with a sudden bereavement, and I don't doubt the sincerity with which that was expressed.

I think there is a strong case for emphasising the social side of the game, whether it's by allowing a degree of off-topic threads in the forums or Happy Humphrey's suggestion of allowing the cache placer to include a recommended pit-stop place. But ultimately it's Groundspeak's call as to if, and/or how, they try to do that.

Nick aka sTeamTraen aka riviouveur

[T.R.a.M.P.]

Originally posted by sTeamTraen@Apr 30 2008, 06:24 PM
Warning: this is a very long post! I've attempted to structure it a bit, but it may appear to ramble a little. Sorry for that.

At last, a sensible, measured response to put the other side of the coin!
I have stayed out of the discussion up to now, feeling that there must be many things that the US reviewers have to put up with that we know nothing about. I certainly would not want to have to review those 'Troops' caches!

Thank you, sTeamTraen for adding some balance. :applause:

[Lactodorum]

Thank you Nick for your well thought out and very reasonable reply. I'm sure others will take issue with parts of it and I'll leave them to do so.

My only point I'd like to make is that even with all the possible problems with so called "inconsistencies" you rightly mention, we had a system which worked almost (!) without a hiccup for around 5 years.

It was not the UK reviewing team that changed everything over the past weeks and months, it was Groundspeak. If they are so "cut up" about it maybe the first step to rectifying the current difficult situation would be to discuss it with those closely involved. That and being prepared to listen to what is being said.

Yes, there have been some intemperate postings recently but there have also been some positive suggestions. These need to be taken on board if things are going to improve.

Feel free to pass on these comments if you think it would help.

Peter

[davy boy]

:D Nick An excellent post and well worth reading BUT i still think it could have been handled better by groundspeak.
We still may have had our two long standing reviewers if it had!

Eg locked threads by the yanks,people being banned.

Whats the point of us having uk reviewers if the yanks keep treading on their feet, have they done it to the french side of things? As i am sure you would not have liked it!

ps its not just about the pub/commercial thing.

[Malpas Wanderer]

Originally posted by sTeamTraen@Apr 30 2008, 05:24 PM

There is also the specific local "problem" of the common language which means that, when American cachers are looking for examples of inconsistency with which to beat up Groundspeak, they will scour the forums and the cache titles and listings, and they are far more likely to come up with something if it's written in English. Had the UK forums and caches all been written in German, maybe none of this would have been noticed. Still, the world is as it is, and at least UK cachers can understand pretty much every word that's on the site (occasional discussions about "color" and "-ized" notwithstanding); the absence of multilingual versions is a huge issue for other countries.



Thank you for this very informative post.

The efforts of the volunteers is greatly appreciated, it is also noticed and wondered however why all the most informative postings and answers are coming from the unpaid personnel. :rolleyes:

I've extracted the language item from your post as I wondered if this issue was just a UK thing or across all countries and intimated such in my OP raised. (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=192007) As yet there has been no response by countries other than UK/USA, it would have been nice to have received some feedback to see how universal a problem there might be.

Thanks again for putting so much into your unpaid position it is appreciated. :) :)

[nobbynobbs]

Thanks Nick for your thoughts. They don't seem to be too dissimilar to what we actually want.

The easiest solution is that there are a set of base guidelines that groundspeak operate with.

Then as each area becomes large enough with enough members to form a body to represent themselves with their own reviewers then I see no reason why they cannot open negotiations to have their own variations.

Groundspeak take great care to state that there is no precedence to be taken from the publishing of any cache so it would be the work of moments to stress that this carries moreso when the precedence is in an area that has it's own guideline variations.

We are not asking for huge differences. We are asking that we are returned to the system that has worked without hitch for 5 years.

[kewfriend]

A few days ago, I also quietly contacted MTN. I will not copy what I wrote or his reply here but the gist of what I said, (in far less words than sTeamTraen aka Nick :P) highlighted the culture and language issues. Our interchange was friendly.

It is surprisingly easy to get culture wrong: an issue in one country or region is simply not an issue in another and vice versa. Something viewed as commercial in one forum is viewed as having no commercial import in another. Something political in one arena, is irrelevant in another.

In the light of MTN's reply I can re-interate what sTeamTraen said.

Damn it - I'll truly miss Lacto & Eck - who will I be able to take the p*ss out of - any chance of ..... ???? :o :o

[dodgydaved]

Originally posted by kewfriend@Apr 30 2008, 09:41 PM

Damn it - I'll truly miss Lacto & Eck - who will I be able to take the p*ss out of - any chance of ..... ???? :o :o
AFAIAC under the present conditions.........................forget it :(

Mind you if you want to take the p*ss out of me here go ahead :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Mongoose39uk]

I have to wonder if anyone at groundspeak is actually capable of answering a straight question. It strikes me as they just try to divert you into a debate at every given opportunity.

[Gushoneybun]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@May 1 2008, 08:22 PM
I have to wonder if anyone at groundspeak is actually capable of answering a straight question. It strikes me as they just try to divert you into a debate at every given opportunity.
Or they have either go no idea what to do without climbing down, or are just hoping it will quieten down and eventually return to 'normal'

[nobbynobbs]

I can only hope that we're not being strung along, the suspision part of me thinks that there might be one or two people who are keeping the debate going until people get bored with it. But that wouldn't be true would it... :popcorn:

[Mongoose39uk]

Have kept quiet on this for a while seeing if we would get any answers.

I don't think we will :angry:

[Lactodorum]

This may seem strange coming from me but I would urge patience in waiting for a definitive statement from Groundspeak. You may well have seen that Miss Jenn has posted a "holding" response (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?s=&showtopic=192411&view=findpost&p=3455193) in the GSP forum and I believe her when she says it is being discussed at GSP HQ.

I too wondered about the conspiracy idea that if they waited long enough it would all blow over but I genuinely believe that is wrong. The situation that led to my resignation was not a minor local spat but a more fundamental methodology of how Groundspeak allows for variation in how the game is conducted worldwide. If they are to change, it will need more than a few days discussion.

I think we can be assured they haven't forgotten about us! :ph34r:

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I'd like to take this chance to thank Jenn for her post, which was made around 7pm her time so outside of office hours. I spent a over a hour with her on the phone [which if you ask my O/H is a miracle seeing as I hate talking on phones, it borders on a phobia :o ]

One if the issues I raised was Nobbys letter and a need for a reply to it. I had a detailed discussion with her about several issues. Some relating to how I'm copping and the progress to wards finding New Reviewers. But a lot of the discussion was centered around the issues which are now causing such angst between the UK Caching Community and Groundspeak. I tried my best to present explanations from the UK Community's point of view, and not my own personal one. Which comes from someone looking out from inside, but whose also a member of that community . I believe Jenn now has a better understanding of how the UK Community views the issues which triggered off the unfortunate events, and thanked me for explaining things to her.

She also stated that she was extremely sorry to have lost Peter and Dave as site volunteers. And felt like the UK Community that it was a sad loss not only for the Community but also for Groundspeak.

One very important thing to come out of the discussion with her, we are not looking at a quick fix. In fact it will be a long slow haul, so please do not expect to see any quick changes in any policy set by Groundspeak. They are listening and taking in what is being said, not only in the UK but from the whole of the Geocaching Community.

Above all please keep the civil and constructive comments coming in, that aim to move both Groundspeak and the UK Community forward.

As a side issue, I also raised the issue of Groundspeak applying the UK and Ireland Regions filter. Jenn said she would look into this for me with the appropiate person in the office.

Once again please be patient, as we are in for a very long haul. If we wish to see things change we have to work together as a community. And present our ideas to Groundspeak in a thought out manner. I know it's frustrating as nothing that is visible which is taking place, but please remain calm, the issues have not and will not be forgotten

Deci

[nobbynobbs]

Deci thanks for all the work and talking you are doing. How you are fitting time in to eat I have no idea!

I understand that jenn is discussing this with others but it might do them good if they discuss it with some people who are UK cachers. We have had the good fortune to operate under the better interpretation of the guidelines and so might have some useful input to help GS figure out how they can improve the situation for everyone or how the status quo can be restored for us.


It would also mean that any final decision would not look again like a decision imposed upon us but rather a workable compromise that has been negotiated.

There more important thing being it would remove the need to take up yet more of your valuable time.

:D

[nobbynobbs]

quick test message.

[sandvika]

The situation that led to my resignation was not a minor local spat but a more fundamental methodology of how Groundspeak allows for variation in how the game is conducted worldwide. If they are to change, it will need more than a few days discussion.


I also consider that there are indeed fundamental issues that need to be addressed.

First amongst these is governance. Who governs caching in the UK? I would suggest that nobody does, which is why we are where we are now.

I think that governance and directory services are two functions that need to be kept totally separate. The fact that Groundspeak self-evidently attempts both is destructive. The fact that Dave, Peter and Dave managed to lubricate the fault line for so long is actually quite a remarkable achievement.

The case I would like to make is that cachers in ther UK need a strong unified voice for dealing with many organisations, of which Groundspeak is but one. I would further argue that this should be GAGB. GAGB needs to come of age and take on the role of governance for caching in the UK.

I think of all the clubs and societies of which I am a member. They all have articles of association, elected officers, committees, often regional groups, newsletters, affiliations to other bodies etc. They also have membership fees which not only demonstrates a proper commitment from those who subscribe, but also provides income to cover operating costs which in turn allows the organisation to provide a decent service level to members and act on their behalf, including lobbying.

At the moment, GAGB has the beginings of this. Recent events demonstrate clearly that it's time to get up and organise. Here's what I mean:


At the outset I would stress that while I am a member of the Geocaching Association of Great Britain this post is entirely off my own back.

In his letter to Groundspeak, the first thing that nobbynobbs did was make it clear that he was speaking as an individual, not on behalf of GAGB. This shows clearly his tacit knowledge that GAGB currently has no teeth and denied him the high ground to tell Groundspeak (our supplier) that they are in error.

If GAGB organises properly, assumes the role of governance for caching in the UK, then it has the right to tell Groundspeak and others what the rules are in the UK, not meekly request that they should reconsider!

The second issue is diversity. Groundspeak has a near monopoly on caching in the UK, GAGB's web site tacitly acknowledges this by having no mention of the other directory sites. However, Groundspeak has limited the scope of caching by eliminating certain types of cache from its directory, that are still supported by other directories. GAGB should play a pivotal role in encouraging innovation and diversity in caching in the UK. This includes setting the challenge to the directory services to meet our evolving needs.

Roderick Parks (sandvika)

[keehotee]

The second issue is diversity. Groundspeak has a near monopoly on caching in the UK, GAGB's web site tacitly acknowledges this by having no mention of the other directory sites. However, Groundspeak has limited the scope of caching by eliminating certain types of cache from its directory, that are still supported by other directories. GAGB should play a pivotal role in encouraging innovation and diversity in caching in the UK. This includes setting the challenge to the directory services to meet our evolving needs.

Roderick Parks (sandvika)

I have to agree with you here... (much as it agrieves me to agree with anybody - lol (joke))

This is the Geocaching Association of Great Britain, not the Groundspeak Association of Great Britain - there are other listing sites out there that never get a mention. This is mainly of their own doing through lack of promotion - just try Googling "geocaching" and see how many hits the Big Green Frog gets - but also down to us. The main criticism of them seems to be that there just aren't any caches around to find on the alternative listings - but 8 years ago there weren't any Groundspeak caches to find either....... all it's going to take is for a few more people to list on the other sites (Terracaching and Navicache) for there to be an "alternative" to go to.
As I said on "the other forum" (when I still could), this will upset the number chasers - but if all you want to do is find caches, there's nothing to stop you using other sites. Perhaps what's really needed is an independant (of Groundspeak) statistics site (Cacher of the Month is the closest thing I can think of at the moment).......???

p.s. No - I haven't listed on either of the alternatives - yet. But I might - even if I do keep using Groundspeak.

[moote01]

sandvika,

The problem with what you propose, is that the GAGB is not really about placing caches, but about landowner negotiation, constitutionally it was never setup for the listing of caches, and to amend that within it's constitution would pull it far away from it's initial goals.

This would be as difficult, if not more as actually setting up a UK cache listing body. So the best approach would be start a new organisation that would deal with cache listings, and leave the GAGB to the work it specialises in.

Moote

[Jaz666]

As I said on "the other forum" (when I still could), this will upset the number chasers - but if all you want to do is find caches, there's nothing to stop you using other sites. Perhaps what's really needed is an independant (of Groundspeak) statistics site (Cacher of the Month is the closest thing I can think of at the moment).......???

p.s. No - I haven't listed on either of the alternatives - yet. But I might - even if I do keep using Groundspeak.

What we would need is a portal to all the Geocaching sites, that would allow the user to perform location based searches, and return all the Geocaches from all the sites.
Getting permission to use Groundspeak's data would be hard, but geocacheuk.com already has the permission......... Teasel would have to find a way to add the "other" Geocaches to the database.

I think this is what the Australian Geocaching site pretty much does.

[keehotee]

sandvika,

The problem with what you propose, is that the GAGB is not really about placing caches, but about landowner negotiation, constitutionally it was never setup for the listing of caches, and to amend that within it's constitution would pull it far away from it's initial goals.

This would be as difficult, if not more as actually setting up a UK cache listing body. So the best approach would be start a new organisation that would deal with cache listings, and leave the GAGB to the work it specialises in.

Moote
I didn't mean that anybody use the GAGB site as a listing site OR a statistics site - sorry if it came across that way. The GAGB does what it does very well - there's no need to add to their workload or constitution.

What I had in mind was a site purely for recording finds - be they sourced from Groundspeak, Navicache, Terracaching, or even letterboxes - to appease the number chasers, but also to give people a place to log a running tally - similar to Cacher of the Month, but daily, not monthly - and not necessarily with a "leaderboard" either.
This would not be a listing site - there are already enough of those, even if 2/3 of them are under-used - but would rely on people visiting to add their own find numbers........

[moote01]

I didn't mean that anybody use the GAGB site as a listing site OR a statistics site - sorry if it came across that way. The GAGB does what it does very well - there's no need to add to their workload or constitution.

What I had in mind was a site purely for recording finds - be they sourced from Groundspeak, Navicache, Terracaching, or even letterboxes - to appease the number chasers, but also to give people a place to log a running tally - similar to Cacher of the Month, but daily, not monthly - and not necessarily with a "leaderboard" either.
This would not be a listing site - there are already enough of those, even if 2/3 of them are under-used - but would rely on people visiting to add their own find numbers........Oh my post was not clear either, I was refering to sandvika's post who was saying that the GAGB should look at being a listing site.

[Alan White]

I agree with everything that Roderick says, except for this bit:

Who governs caching in the UK? I would suggest that nobody does, which is why we are where we are now.
Somebody does govern caching in the UK. Groundspeak does, and that's why we are where we are now.

As I said in discussion with Bill elsewhere, the reason why I'm not a member of GAGB is because I perceive (incorrectly, Bill has said) that GAGB is entirely focussed on discussions with landowners. I'd love to see GAGB grow into the voice of caching in the UK. To do that it must expand its horizons and market itself.

But Groundspeak and the other listing sites don't have to listen to GAGB in respect of what is listed. GAGB can, and has, make guidelines about how caching should be done in the UK but the decision about which caches may be listed rests with the listing site. The only way out of that is to have a listing site which agrees entirely with the objectives of GAGB and agrees to list caches only in accordance with GAGBs's guidelines. This needs a symbiotic relationship, which history shows we're never going to get with Groundspeak.

[HoweFamily]

In my understanding, Groundspeak does not govern caching within the UK, but merely governs what is listed and discussed on Geocaching.com, which is used by the majority of cachers.

Caching I think by its very nature cannot be governed (except on private land, etc) but there are a set of adpoted guidelines formulated by those who have tried to provide the means to easily hide and seek (and log) caches, and agreed by those who wish to use the services provided.

The problem is that in some cases now, some of the cachers no longer wish to agree to or be bound by the guidelines as rigidly applied.

[moote01]

In my understanding, Groundspeak does not govern caching within the UK, but merely governs what is listed and discussed on Geocaching.com, which is used by the majority of cachers. Well that is the case, but now they wish us not to list caches that mention Public House names etc. Not very good if you are arranging an event in one.



Caching I think by its very nature cannot be governed (except on private land, etc) but there are a set of adpoted guidelines formulated by those who have tried to provide the means to easily hide and seek (and log) caches, and agreed by those who wish to use the services provided.There has to be some rules, we can't just not have them. The most basic rule is the 0.1 of a mile; but beyond this rules need to reflect local and not USA, custom and practice; things which are OK in the US might not be in the UK and vice versa.



The problem is that in some cases now, some of the cachers no longer wish to agree to or be bound by the guidelines as rigidly applied.Not entirely true; what has been said both here and on the Groundspeak forums is that the cultural differences should be reflected. Groundspeak rules are US based and don't take into account both UK lifestyle and laws.

[studlyone]

Well that is the case, but now they wish us not to list caches that mention Public House names etc. Not very good if you are arranging an event in one.You are allowed to mention a pub if you are having an event there just not on a regular cache page.


UPDATE -- Groundspeak has just told me that you are still allowed to put the name of the pub and the address in your event cache pages, so cache on as you have been before! Full Post https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=191918&st=0&p=3443626&#entry3443626

[HoweFamily]

There has to be some rules, we can't just not have them. The most basic rule is the 0.1 of a mile; but beyond this rules need to reflect local and not USA, custom and practice; things which are OK in the US might not be in the UK and vice versa.


You misunderstand me - I don't mean there are no rules on the websites - I mean there are no rules full stop.
If I wanted to go out and put a container and log book somewhere and call it a cache, then provided it wasn't on private land I would be free to do this and AFAIK no-one could stop me. I could then "publish" my cache anywhere I wanted for people to find. Therefore, fundamentally, no-one actually governs caching itself - just the websites.

Just to make it clear to everyone - I am NOT advocating this approach!!! Alan White said in his post that Geocaching.com govern caching in the UK and I'm just making the point that they do not. Obviously I acknowledge that they do hold an enormous amount of power and influence currently.

TheWife
HoweFamily

[dodgydaved]

If I wanted to go out and put a container and log book somewhere and call it a cache, then provided it wasn't on private land I would be free to do this and AFAIK no-one could stop me. I could then "publish" my cache anywhere I wanted for people to find.


TheWife
HoweFamily

......and that, of course, was Howe (sorry!) it all started:

http://geocaching.gpsgames.org/history/

[moote01]

You are allowed to mention a pub if you are having an event there just not on a regular cache page.

Full Post https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=191918&st=0&p=3443626&#entry3443626

Looks link a classic U turn to me along with Mandy's calenders.


If I wanted to go out and put a container and log book somewhere and call it a cache, then provided it wasn't on private land I would be free to do this and AFAIK no-one could stop me. I could then "publish" my cache anywhere I wanted for people to find. Therefore, fundamentally, no-one actually governs caching itself - just the websites.
You have answered this yourself, at least for England and Wales; all land in England and Wales is owned, this is what the Land Registry regulates, therefore all land is private and you would require permission from the landowner to place a cache. Unless you own that land that is! The GAGB negotiates on block with larger landowners (Councils, National Trust etc)

[Alan White]

Alan White said in his post that Geocaching.com govern caching in the UK
That is indeed what the words say - you have to read between them :).

What I was saying is that because Groundspeak is so powerful (not least because we allow it to be) then for all intents and purposes Groundspeak govern the hobby in every country as well as providing a listing site. The rules laid down by Groundspeak for listing on their site have become the rules by which the game is played, regardless of whether Groundspeak's rules are appropriate for every country.

[nobbynobbs]

And the reason that I prefaced my first comment with the fact that I was speaking personally was that I felt a thread needed to be started and I hadn't had the chance to check with the others that they agreed on my wording.

After doing so I posted that I was talking for the GAGB.


It might just be me but I am finding it hard to understand how we could take governance or what ever name you wish to use for all the UK caches. We already try to represent the interests of all UK cachers and have the accusation leveled at us that we never asked joe bloggs his individual opinion so we should be quiet. How exactly could we force all UK cachers to agree to be members of the GAGB when you yourself alan refused to do so.

It would be great to actually have some muscle to force GS to do what we want answers on a postcard please. :)

[dodgydaved]

It would be great to actually have some muscle to force GS to do what we want answers on a postcard please. :)



....regretfully, I suggest the answer to that could be written on something smaller than a postage stamp [:(]

[sandvika]

sandvika,

The problem with what you propose, is that the GAGB is not really about placing caches, but about landowner negotiation, constitutionally it was never setup for the listing of caches, and to amend that within it's constitution would pull it far away from it's initial goals.

This would be as difficult, if not more as actually setting up a UK cache listing body. So the best approach would be start a new organisation that would deal with cache listings, and leave the GAGB to the work it specialises in.

Moote

Moote, I think you missed the points I made. First, I think that governance and directory services are two functions that need to be kept totally separate. I'm proposing that GAGB assumes the role of gvernance. Therefore GAGB has absolutely nothing to do with placing caches or listing them.

Second, I think GAGB needs to come of age and assume the role of governance for caching in the UK. Section C of the constitution is only part of what GAGB's remit should be and is weakly worded: voluntarily toothless. Landowner negotiation is just one facet of governance. Section C is self-evidently no longer fit for purpose, having no subscription (and making this an objective) is self-defeating. The rest of the constitution is organisational verbiage and essentially irrelevant to this discussion.

I would like GAGB to be relevant and have Groundspeak et al defering to us for guidance with respect to caching in UK instead of imposing nonsensical rules without consultation. The boot should be on the other foot.

If the GAGB Executive Committee think it's right that GAGB should limit itself to the single facet of landowner negotiation and not represent UK cachers to other relevant bodies such as directories, government etc. then let's please have this discussion quickly and reach an outcome either way. Frankly, time is now of the essence, we need to seize this moment and be decisive.

Roderick Parks (sandvika)

[nobbynobbs]

If I'm reading between the lines properly is this what you suggest?

That the GAGB decide a set of guidelines for cache placing in the UK to be listed alongside the landowner agreements.

We then insist that all UK caches be placed in accordance with that list. The reviewers for the UK could then refer to that list and not groundspeaks?

In principal I am in favour of that idea and I'm sure I could think of three people who would be able to make such a list between them.

This sort of thing would need a vote by all members obviously but as we are only asking for everyone to agree to what has been running for 5+ years it shouldn't be too hard.

Would this then be the first step to assuming governance of the UK caching? It's a good word but what else do you actually have in mind? :)

[keehotee]

If I'm reading between the lines properly is this what you suggest?

That the GAGB decide a set of guidelines for cache placing in the UK to be listed alongside the landowner agreements.

We then insist that all UK caches be placed in accordance with that list. The reviewers for the UK could then refer to that list and not groundspeaks?



So - this is to be the Groundspeak Association of Great Britain after all, then?:confused:

Any guideline list will only work as it does now - as a voluntary agreement - because there are other listing sites out there that don't rely on review before publishing.........

And Groundspeak does not govern all geocaching in the UK any more than the Rugby Union governs all rugby in the UK.....!!! (did ya see what I did there...)

[sTeamTraen]

If you sat down to come up with a set of cache *placement* guidelines, you'd end up with something pretty close to Groundspeak's. (I'm distinguishing "placement" from "listing" here.) In fact as far as I know the current UK placement guidelines are similar to Groundspeak's apart from the dry stone wall restriction, which the Americans would undoubtedly adopt if they had any such constructions. And I don't think you have to stay 150ft from a railway in the UK, which even the allegedly internationally-unaware lackeys know is US-only. (Incidentally, it's a trespassing issue - it's even a Federal law, I think - and nothing to do with safety. Groundspeak apparently does not care if you get hit by a train. :))

Jeremy told me once that in an ideal world, the placement guidelines would consist of four words: "All local laws apply". I would guess that minor local adjustments to the placement guidelines could be negotiable; for one thing, the problem of people from Nebraska complaining about inconsistency are greatly reduced. Make sure you avoid the "B" word ("buried"), the exact definition of which causes major hassles in some European countries, but I don't think that's a big issue for the UK.

On the *listing* guidelines, I hope that Groundspeak will do something sensible in the reasonably near future. This might be a worldwide relaxation of some of what some people see as the more "Puritanical" items, or some form of official support for regional variations. The former will be easier to do, since the latter will require negotiation with several major countries' leading Geocaching associations simply to decide what is and isn't acceptable to all, or at least a substantial majority, and is in itself a potential can of worms - what would happen if, say, the Geocaching Association of Scotland were to be formed as a breakaway? - but it may come one day, given issues in other countries.

Which reminds me, I never did find out what the "current exceptions" for Australia and the Netherlands were, which Matt mentioned in his original post. The reviewers for those countries haven't been able to enlighten me either. Can someone explain?

[sandvika]

If I'm reading between the lines properly is this what you suggest?

That the GAGB decide a set of guidelines for cache placing in the UK to be listed alongside the landowner agreements.

We then insist that all UK caches be placed in accordance with that list. The reviewers for the UK could then refer to that list and not groundspeaks?

In principal I am in favour of that idea and I'm sure I could think of three people who would be able to make such a list between them.

This sort of thing would need a vote by all members obviously but as we are only asking for everyone to agree to what has been running for 5+ years it shouldn't be too hard.

Would this then be the first step to assuming governance of the UK caching? It's a good word but what else do you actually have in mind? :)

You don't need to read between my lines, just the lines themselves!

Yes, the GAGB decides what cache placement guidelines should be for UK and what is acceptable and not acceptable in the listing.

It takes the leadership role in persuading (or even requiring) the directories to accept and follow this as UK practice and ideally appoint reviewers to the directories to follow UK practice for UK listings. For directories that do not have a formal review process, adopt an informal approach of reviewing caches that are published and working with the cache placers to ensure they comply with the cache placement guidelines and do not bring caching into disrepute.

This would allow Groundspeak to stop its unwelcomed spread into governance and focus on its remit as a directory.

An important step in this direction would be to be impartial with respect to the directories. At the moment, the GAGB web site looks and feels like the geocaching.com association....Get the groundspeak logo and "recognition" off the home page (it's not an accolade, it's a less than minimum requirement of them.....); ensure that Navicache and Terracaching and any others are given exactly the same treatment on the "links" page, without passing any judgment on which sites are large/small/popular/unpopular. That's self-evident to cachers anyway and GAGB should represent the users of all the directories.

Then play an advocacy role. In the existing situation, getting a national newspaper to cover the advertising issue GS has with respect to pubs and charities would show how out of touch they are (shame on them) whilst also drawing attention to our hobby and thereby drawing people in to it.

Play a colaborative role. It's self evident to me that the average age of cachers is quite high. We are mostly not young hooligans, but mature people who enjoy an outdoor game responsibly. There must be synergies with The Ramblers Association. We quite possibly form a sizeable minority in the National Trust, English Heritage etc. and could be using good influences like the CITO principle to gain favour from them in the form of permissive attitude, then cultivate them to who knows where!

At the moment, I would gather that Groundspeak would preclude us from mentioning National Trust or English Heritage as it would be promoting charity, which is counter-productive. Let's work to raise the level of the game, not reduce it to the lowest common denominator.

Roderick (sandvika)

[nobbynobbs]

Some interesting points that I will make sure the other members of the committe read. Thanks.

[Lactodorum]

In case there's any doubt here, I would like to state my personal position that if GAGB intent in setting itself up as local "lawmaking" body to try and control how geocaching must be played in this country then I want no part of it.

I have been pleased to work fairly closely with the GAGB during my time as a Groundspeak reviewer and have actively supported them in their efforts to increase acceptance of geocaching with local landowners. Much of this acceptance has come about as a result of them developing a local best practice or set of local guidelines.

However what is starting to emerge in this discussion is, to my mind, is an attempt to take de facto control of the sport. I don't know where this apparent authority came from but I distance myself from it.

As just a regular player of the game now, but one with some particular experience of how Groundspeak and their volunteers work, I can assure you that they will not concede any control of their listings to an external body. You may think this unacceptable but it is a fact. Indeed, if this continues I can see GAGB being ignored by them which would be a shame.

[Bill D (wwh)]

GAGB don't have any intention of trying to set ourselves up as a lawmaking body for caching in the UK, nor do we wish to try to take control of caching in this country. We accept that there are a number of cache listing sites which all set, and will continue to set, their own terms and conditions regarding what may or may not be listed on their sites, and that is of course their prerogative.

We do, however, provide "best practice" guidelines for the placing of caches, which we hope are and will be generally recognized by UK cachers as being conducive to achieving and maintaining good relations with landowners in the UK, and we would of course like to see UK cachers follow those guidelines.

The guidelines, though, are and always will be just that - guidelines. We have no intention of trying to make those guidelines "law", and if anything's been said that suggests otherwise, I think it's only due to enthusiasm for the idea that a widely recognized set of standards for cache placement in the UK is probably beneficial to us all in the long run.

---
Bill, Chairman GAGB

[Alan White]

In case there's any doubt here, I would like to state my personal position that if GAGB intent in setting itself up as local "lawmaking" body to try and control how geocaching must be played in this country then I want no part of it.

And I - and I mean this in the nicest possible way - have no intention of joining GAGB while it's not. Because the alternative is having UK caching run by a bunch of Americans, and we've seen what that results in.

[Lactodorum]

And I - and I mean this in the nicest possible way - have no intention of joining GAGB while it's not. Because the alternative is having UK caching run by a bunch of Americans, and we've seen what that results in.
And that is where we part company.I'm certainly no lover of "The American Way", quite the opposite in fact, despite knowing quite a few Americans personally and having several American relatives. However the listing site I choose to use is run by an American company and so be it. As it happens I'm typing this message on a Japanese computer, using an OS by an American company after going out to buy some English cider in a German car. I take a pragmatic approach to life and if the product delivers what I want I don't give a tinker's cuss where it comes from.

Based on Bill's post I shall remain active with GAGB and you obviously won't.

Last word on the subject.

[Mongoose39uk]

GAGB don't have any intention of trying to set ourselves up as a lawmaking body for caching in the UK, nor do we wish to try to take control of caching in this country. We accept that there are a number of cache listing sites which all set, and will continue to set, their own terms and conditions regarding what may or may not be listed on their sites, and that is of course their prerogative.

We do, however, provide "best practice" guidelines for the placing of caches, which we hope are and will be generally recognized by UK cachers as being conducive to achieving and maintaining good relations with landowners in the UK, and we would of course like to see UK cachers follow those guidelines.

The guidelines, though, are and always will be just that - guidelines. We have no intention of trying to make those guidelines "law", and if anything's been said that suggests otherwise, I think it's only due to enthusiasm for the idea that a widely recognized set of standards for cache placement in the UK is probably beneficial to us all in the long run.

---
Bill, Chairman GAGB

About sums it up from my point of view as well.

Thanks for posting this Bill

[nobbynobbs]

Peter I hope that it is not my posts that have made you think this?

I was happy with the idea of listing a set of guidelines that we wished to have for the UK becasue that's pretty much what we already do.

The idea of governance was an interesting thought which had been raised so I was curious as to where people were thinking of going. This is after all an open forum and I fully expect people to feel free to say what they think otherwise how could the GAGB know what it's members actually want. Any actual change of policy would always require a vote and that would mean getting the support of the cachers in the UK.

So while I can see that you may be concerned I see no reason for people to not say what they think. :)

[sTeamTraen]

Yes, the GAGB decides what cache placement guidelines should be for UK and what is acceptable and not acceptable in the listing.


As I already pointed out, for reasonable variations in the cache placement guidelines, you're probably pushing at an open door. For listing guidelines ("what goes on the cache page"), I would humbly suggest that the people who receive the bills for the servers and bandwidth might like a say in that, whoever they are, and they're probably all going to have a different view.



It takes the leadership role in persuading (or even requiring) the directories to accept and follow this as UK practice and ideally appoint reviewers to the directories to follow UK practice for UK listings.


What would the penalty be for listing services who did not comply with the "requirements"?



For directories that do not have a formal review process, adopt an informal approach of reviewing caches that are published and working with the cache placers to ensure they comply with the cache placement guidelines and do not bring caching into disrepute.


Do you mean "ask rogue cache placers nicely if they wouldn't mind awfully not doing that"? Let me know how that works out.



This would allow Groundspeak to stop its unwelcomed spread into governance and focus on its remit as a directory.


Groundspeak does not "do" governance. It specifies the criteria that caches and cache listings must conform to, in order to be listed on its pages. If you want to place a cache in a six-foot deep hole that you've dug, I'm sure that there's a listing service which will accept it. And if there isn't, well, they aren't taking orders from Groundspeak, so there might be a good reason for the rule.

In fact, Groundspeak does not have a "remit", as a directory or anything else. This is not some discussion within a government context as to whether, say, a local health authority should be running hospitals or just getting patients cured: it's not relevant, because there is no higher power (short of the Almighty) who oversees questions of "governance" and "remit". There is no worldwide "OfCache" who could begin to decide on such things.

Groundspeak more or less invented the game and has a de facto near-monopoly on listings in many (although not all) countries. This is certainly a situation which has its own problems, but we're hardly into anti-trust territory here. Groundspeak didn't come along like Microsoft and totally turn an existing industry on its head. If they hadn't invented the game, *none of us would be here in this forum*. (It's a bit like when my teenage daughter starts telling me what a terrible parent I am, just before she asks me for a lift into town...)

Geocaching, worldwide, is perhaps a five million dollar per year business, including all the spinoffs but excluding the petrol. (That's about a third of what UK citizens spend in a single day on curry.) It's really not very important to 99.98% of the population. (Geocaching, that is. Curry is a bit more serious.)



Then play an advocacy role. In the existing situation, getting a national newspaper to cover the advertising issue GS has with respect to pubs and charities would show how out of touch they are (shame on them) whilst also drawing attention to our hobby and thereby drawing people in to it.


A national newspaper? It's hard enough to get a national newspaper to print a story about what geocaching is, without using the word "geek". And if they did run a story saying "Geek high-tech game has internal regulation problems caused by Internet being an imperfect communication channel", how much chance would that have versus "Maize futures for August delivery up 2.4% on fears of rain in US Mid-West", let along "My night of drug-fuelled passion with TV star"? (Oh, and by the way, the new guidelines have essentially removed the problem anyway. Have you read them?)



At the moment, I would gather that Groundspeak would preclude us from mentioning National Trust or English Heritage as it would be promoting charity, which is counter-productive.


You would gather wrong. In fact, even before the guidelines were changed, there was nothing to stop you mentioning the name of a non-profit organisation, right there on the cache page. You could say "the cache is on land owned by the National Trust", right there. This was not a UK exception, nor did it need a "nudge-nudge say no more" from the UK reviewers. What you couldn't say was "the National Trust is a great organisation and I strongly recommend you drop a quid in the collection box at the entrance".

[dodgydaved]

Gosh Nick - are you now the official North European mouthpiece for Groundspeak - sounds a bit like it - and answers some of my little thoughts about how things I may have said have been reported elsewhere :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[sTeamTraen]

Gosh Nick - are you now the official North European mouthpiece for Groundspeak - sounds a bit like it

Nah. Groundspeak would never authorise anyone to suggest that geocaching is not very important, or only worth 8 hours of curry. :)

But having spent some time with the Groundspeak people (a highlight was going to see Barack Obama speak "live" when I was in Seattle, when half the lackeys went along), I do believe "most sincerely" that problems in communication are 100 times more likely to be caused by crossed wires than excessive zeal and/or a desire for world domination. If my position as a Brit who lives [elsewhere] in "Yurp" and is therefore to some extent agnostic on some of the issues, can help communication with the "Murriikens" then I'm happy to do it.

[dodgydaved]

But having spent some time with the Groundspeak people (a highlight was going to see Barack Obama speak "live" when I was in Seattle, when half the lackeys went along) .

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Say no more........................

[sandvika]

For listing guidelines ("what goes on the cache page"), I would humbly suggest that the people who receive the bills for the servers and bandwidth might like a say in that, whoever they are, and they're probably all going to have a different view.

I would suggest you are wrong. Those who PAY the bills for the servers and bandwidth should have a say in that. The CUSTOMERS.



What would the penalty be for listing services who did not comply with the "requirements"?

You missed the point. I suggested that GAGB should take the leadership role in advocacy.




Groundspeak does not "do" governance. It specifies the criteria that caches and cache listings must conform to, in order to be listed on its pages. If you want to place a cache in a six-foot deep hole that you've dug, I'm sure that there's a listing service which will accept it. And if there isn't, well, they aren't taking orders from Groundspeak, so there might be a good reason for the rule.

Of course it does governance. Was it by response to the demands of CUSTOMERS that virtual caches, webcam caches and locationless caches can no longer be published?



In fact, Groundspeak does not have a "remit", as a directory or anything else. This is not some discussion within a government context as to whether, say, a local health authority should be running hospitals or just getting patients cured: it's not relevant, because there is no higher power (short of the Almighty) who oversees questions of "governance" and "remit". There is no worldwide "OfCache" who could begin to decide on such things.

I think you are at odds with the majority of PREMIUM MEMBER CUSTOMERS who PAY for DIRECTORY FEATURES. I'm talking about GAGB playing the advocacy role for UK CUSTOMERS.



Groundspeak more or less invented the game and has a de facto near-monopoly on listings in many (although not all) countries. This is certainly a situation which has its own problems, but we're hardly into anti-trust territory here. Groundspeak didn't come along like Microsoft and totally turn an existing industry on its head. If they hadn't invented the game, *none of us would be here in this forum*.

Next you'll be telling us that world war 2 started with the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Caching with a GPSr is a variation of caching without one. Let's call caching without one letterboxing. When did Groundspeak invent that?



It's really not very important to 99.98% of the population.

Hence GAGB should play an advocacy role to make caching important to more than 0.02% of the UK population and also with greater proportions of bodies with shared goals and also with authorities who need to be educated to prevent them making false judgments.




A national newspaper?

You jumped on newspaper and missed the point. I suggested that GAGB should take the leadership role in advocacy.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, however, aside from your sarcasm (which was illuminating), it seemed to me that your post was largely one of advocacy for one directory service. Which indicates my point precisely. We need the GAGB to act as a broad advocate for our hobby. The directory service that you advocate is one that patently made the mistake of ignoring its customers' requirements. If GAGB had played an advocacy role, this would have been much less likely to occur.

[sTeamTraen]

I don't think we are going to agree on very much here - I think I agree that GAGB should take a leading role in advocacy but apparently some other people here don't, so I'll stay out of that since the issues are beyond my knowledge.

For (relative :)) brevity, I would just like to answer one of your points which particularly stood out:



Of course it does governance. Was it by response to the demands of CUSTOMERS that virtual caches, webcam caches and locationless caches can no longer be published?


Groundspeak did not say that this type of geocache can no longer be published; they decided that they didn't want to list new ones on their site. That's not governance, any more than Tesco would be doing governance of the poultry industry if they decided to stop selling battery-farmed chickens. (Groundspeak doesn't even own the trademark "geocaching"; Jeremy had the chance to register it in the early days, and he chose not to do so. That doesn't sound like someone bent on world domination to me.)

I presume that when Groundspeak took the decision to phase out these cache types, they did so in what they perceived as the best long-term interests of the game and their company, perhaps because these cache types were becoming a distraction. Perhaps they judged that in the long run, a glut of low-quality virtuals with a requirement for reviewers to determine the famous "wow factor", would give them trouble recruiting good reviewers, which might over time lead to problems with physical caches. I don't know. It's their call, and they live with the consequences.

But in any case, it was clearly their decision to make. They invented these cache types and that doesn't commit them to supporting them, unchanged, for the next 50 years - it's an element of a game, not a heart pacemaker.

If you want to publish this kind of cache, there are other listing sites that let you do it. In fact I think every other geocache listing site I've ever seen still accepts virtuals. It's true that you don't get a geocaching.com smiley for finding them, but in a world with multiple listing services, where it's not just about your geocaching.com numbers, why would that matter?

[nobbynobbs]

It is the aim of the GAGB to represent the cachers of the UK and support them.

The trouble is that not all members of the UK caching community know about us and some see us as a group of power mad upstarts who are in it for their own benefits.

We need everyone to go out and advertise the fact that we exist and to explain the positive aspects while dissolving the untrue beliefs so that we are better able to represent all UK cachers.

So add the new icon to your cache pages. Tell people that we are here and ask them to come and look us over.

We can't force groundspeak to do anything and due to the nature of the hobby goverance is impossible for anyone to have. A solid large customer association is capable of making itself heard however. I like to think that we had something to do with the recent change of guidelines, maybe I'm deluding myself but there you go.

:cheers:

[Alan White]

It is the aim of the GAGB to represent the cachers of the UK and support them.

So long as they choose to use Groundspeak :confused:? A while ago sandvika made the point that the GAGB home page only mentions Groundspeak: it still does. Surely GAGB should be agnostic in which listing services it advertises?



to explain the positive aspects while dissolving the untrue beliefs so that we are better able to represent all UK cachers.

Sounds good. What are each of those :)? This is a serious question, as people's perception of them will vary so GAGB needs to advertise itself by describing the detail of what it does and what the untrue beliefs are and why they've arisen.

[nobbynobbs]

Alan if you would read the front home page you will see that the reason that the GAGB was set up was:

"
This Association was established to provide an elected voice for its members in the United Kingdom.
Its aims are to establish good practice, provide a focal point for public liaison and support the growth and enjoyment of Geocaching in harmony with the law and environment"


we have a set of guidelines that have been used by the reviewers of this country for the last 5 years and are the starting point for negotiations with landowners for blanket agreements.

We have the full list of those agreements so that cachers can easily see what they can and can't do as regards caching on the land covered.

There is a phone number that can be used on caches so that landowners and muggles have a easy way to contact someone to discuss a cache they have found.

The reference to www.geocaching.com (https://www.geocaching.com) is on the quick guide page and it clearly states that that is the most prominant. we do list a link to navicache on the links page, maybe you missed it?

We have a contact email address that is monitired by the committee so that people can ask for help.

We have an open forum where we try to bend over backwards to accomodate cachers so that they feel able to ask for things and discuss things without fear of being jumped on.


For the life of me I can't see what certain people have against the GAGB. but I suppose that there will always be someone who finds fault and errors if they look hard enough. All I was asking people to do was try and correct that mistake and come to this site and make use of it.

Hopefully that's answered some of the positive aspects that we offer?

[FollowMeChaps]

Nobbynobbs - you forgot to mention the big fat salary the committee are paid for providing this service. :eek:

FMC quickly dives for cover! :D:D:D

[dodgydaved]

Nobbynobbs - you forgot to mention the big fat salary the committee are paid for providing this service. :eek:

FMC quickly dives for cover! :D:D:D




......ypu, but it is only about half of what Peter and I used to get from GSP for reviewing:eek::cheers:

[Bill D (wwh)]

Yep, it's a nice fat pay cheque, but it's nowhere near as much as I'd like... :ph34r:

[paul.blitz]

What amuses me is that in SOME european countries (eg Belgium, Netherlands) it is deemed 100% acceptable and NORMAL to BURY caches...

(The only way to find many of them is to poke the ground... when you hear a hollow thud, you know you just found the piece of wood that covers the cache!)

I'm talking about (a) dig hole; (b) line sides with pieces of wood; (c) back-fill; (d) insert large ammo box; (e) cover with wood; (f) sprinkle with soil / leaves etc

I wonder how long my cache listing would last if I were to do that in the UK?

Paul B

[nobbynobbs]

Would you want it to be published Paul? :)

It is annoying if you see rules applied differently without any stated reason. Which is exactly why we pressed for the changes. If they are allowed to bury caches over there because of local rules and agreements then I have no problem with that at all. :)

[Lactodorum]

I would certainly complain if I saw that one of the most basic tenets of Geocaching had been breached with a cache being buried without express permission from GSP. If this is indeed common in these countries it makes a complete mockery of everyone else being lectured by certain people about other perceived infringements.

Maybe they are allowed to get away with it because the Prime moaners are based overseas and don't speak the lingo. I suspect that people who have complained that blind adherence to their interpretation of the guidelines is a Keystone to getting caches published are only interested in cache listings written in English.

Perhaps you should help by pointing out the offending caches. To misquote a metaphor (purely to avoid upsetting a certain fanatical religious group) if a Mountain won't come to a Man then a Man must come to a Mountain.

Personally I don't normally give a Purple Pony what is considered acceptable elsewhere but this sort of thing does annoy me.

:ph34r:

[FollowMeChaps]

Perhaps the reason for the 'do not bury a cache' rule is to avoid tapping into the water table and any contamination of the local water supply. In Belgium and the Netherlands they they are so mountainous that they have probably been given special dispensation as there's no danger of that happening. :p

[Bill D (wwh)]

I've always assumed that the reason buried caches aren't allowed is that a buried cache could lead to a large area of ground being dug up by would-be finders - your gps takes you close to the spot, but not near enough to necessarily dig in exactly the right place.

I believe (though I could be wrong) there are exceptions in the UK, like caches buried in sand on a beach, where there's a distinctive rock to pinpoint the spot, for example, but caches buried in soil seem to me something that shouldn't be allowed anywhere, as in my opinion they set an extremely dangerous precedent.

[keehotee]

I believe (though I could be wrong) there are exceptions in the UK, like caches buried in sand on a beach, where there's a distinctive rock to pinpoint the spot, for example, but caches buried in soil seem to me something that shouldn't be allowed anywhere, as in my opinion they set an extremely dangerous precedent.

Buried caches are allowed in any country according to the guidelines....



Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):


Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate. (My underlining)

[Bill D (wwh)]

Yes, you're absolutely right, Tim, they are allowed anywhere, but I'm agin 'em myself...

[Muggle]

I would certainly complain if I saw that one of the most basic tenets of Geocaching had been breached with a cache being buried without express permission from GSP. If this is indeed common in these countries it makes a complete mockery of everyone else being lectured by certain people about other perceived infringements.

Maybe they are allowed to get away with it because the Prime moaners are based overseas and don't speak the lingo. I suspect that people who have complained that blind adherence to their interpretation of the guidelines is a Keystone to getting caches published are only interested in cache listings written in English.

Perhaps you should help by pointing out the offending caches. To misquote a metaphor (purely to avoid upsetting a certain fanatical religious group) if a Mountain won't come to a Man then a Man must come to a Mountain.

Personally I don't normally give a Purple Pony what is considered acceptable elsewhere but this sort of thing does annoy me.

:ph34r:
What on Eartha are you talking about?? :cool:

[sTeamTraen]

If they are allowed to bury caches over there because of local rules and agreements then I have no problem with that at all. :)

This issue of caches being "buried" (whatever that means) in some countries - notably, but not limited to, .nl/.be - is a current discussion item between the European reviewers and Groundspeak.

From my discussions with other reviewers, it turns out that in some places, the only way to get permission from the landowner is if the cache is placed this way. They won't allow anything above ground. (Many years ago, a law student friend of mine started to collect "things which are illegal in one place and compulsory in another". They make for great fun at the border.)

Note that the "B" word is one of the worst words you can use in the Groundspeak offices. For example, if a press article about geocaching mentions that caches are even remotely like "buried treasure", that article probably won't be linked to in the weekly mailer. Why? Well, to over-simplify a little: because a single buried cache got geocaching banned from the entire US National Park system. (Compare it to the immense damage done worldwide by the guy who started the MMR vaccine panic, and who is now selling quack remedies by mail order from Florida; after a while, people stop listening to the evidence. All that stuck in the mind of many people in the National Park Service was "geocachers want to come onto our land and dig holes".)

So, in some places there are informal local agreements in place between the reviewers, the caching community, and the landowners, but without Groundspeak's (prior) knowledge. However, Groundspeak is in a quandary. They can tell their reviewers to archive hundreds of caches which are not upsetting any local cachers or landowners, or they can leave them in place and incur the wrath of people in places whose non-conforming caches have been archived or refused. Substitute "forum posts" for "caches" and you have what happened in April. I wouldn't want to bet that Groundspeak is up for another incident on that scale.

I suspect that the UK will always be at a disadvantage here because of the common language. It's that much more likely that Groundspeak will become aware of any given issue in the UK than in, say, Finland, simply because they can see it happening themselves. (The advantages of the common language far outweigh the disadvantages, but it's always easier to spot asymmetry when it's not working in your favour.)

Back to burying: personally I would like to see:
- A tolerance of caches where some digging was required to place the cache, perhaps with express written permission from the land manager.
- A continued lack of tolerance of caches where you have to dig to find the cache.

In the longer term I would like to see the possibility of official, written regional guidelines to enable specific local issues to be addressed. There is is already a nod for a local "no" (dry stone walls, etc) but it is much harder for a local "yes" because suddenly everyone is a cultural exception ("we do things differently here in South Dakota than they do in North Dakota") and by not granting their special cache type you are "oppressing" them, and they are writing to contact@groundspeak.com complaining that this cache placed halfway around the world is OK so why isn't theirs, waah waah. (When the local exception is a "no", hardly anyone is aware of the "oppression", because most people don't see the caches which were refused.) So although I think this would be a great idea :), I know that it would also be a can of worms and I'm not sure Groundspeak wants to be any more into the worm-recanning business than they are at present.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Thanks for that information, sTeamTraen! I wasn't aware that some landowners in some countries *only* allow buried caches. That puts a rather different light on things, and though I've said above that I'm totally against buried caches, if that's what the landowner wants then I've got no problem with it. :)

In view of that, I agree that perhaps buried caches should be allowed with the landowner's express permission, provided that digging isn't required to find them.

I take your point about the worm-recanning, though! :ph34r:

[nobbynobbs]

So groundspeak don't/didn't want to upset a minority of American who are loud in their objections but limited in their language skills and ability to understand the concept of "no precedent".

Yet the same people are happy to cause loads of trouble elsewhere in the world by coming down hard on things that work just fine.

Not intending to start the problem up again as a workable compromise has been reached but it is daft that this situation has arisen after so long of these local arrangements working just fine.

[sTeamTraen]

I think that lessons have been learned. But only time will tell.

[dodgydaved]

I think that lessons have been learned. But only time will tell.


Yeah....right:mad::mad::mad::mad:

[FollowMeChaps]

Yeah....right:mad::mad::mad::mad:

I'm glad you said it Dave - I know we all feel it! :applause:

[Lactodorum]

There is is already a nod for a local "no" (dry stone walls, etc) but it is much harder for a local "yes" because suddenly everyone is a cultural exception ("we do things differently here in South Dakota than they do in North Dakota") and by not granting their special cache type you are "oppressing" them, and they are writing to contact@groundspeak.com complaining that this cache placed halfway around the world is OK so why isn't theirs, waah waah.
So we suffer from more restrictions than elsewhere. Just because it may be difficult for some narrow minded geocachers to understand that there are differences all over the world is no reason to stifle creativity and go for a "lowest common denominator" approach. Those at the end of the "contact@" e-mail are quite capable of telling such people that things can be different elsewhere.

It seems to me that we are still being disallowed ANY flexibility in the guidelines whereas the same old flouting is going on in other places. A quick 5 minute search came up with such examples as:

Publicising a local restaurant (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=a7f2c2fc-ad51-4228-a682-1521248d242f&log=y)
e-mailing for coordinates (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=446b5245-1003-4aee-85de-c28883b27ea0&log=y)
Naming a major business and having to go inside to find the cache (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=50e39573-0510-4ab2-9ff4-7a46374bbc75&log=y)
Solicitation of a business (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=dc278a60-3459-4899-82bd-42c460f9731a&log=y)
Commercial material in the cache promoting local businesses (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=923d3f6e-98c9-42e6-a98a-d73bcfca47ab&log=y)

The fact that it only took me a couple of minutes searching indicates to me that there must be many more similar examples. I only looked at caches published in 2008 so there are no grandfathered caches there. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed (that would be hypocritical) but I am saying that this sort of thing is widespread and we shouldn't be singled out. Are the local reviewers who published these being watched like hawks as well or was it just us?

You say that Groundspeak has learned. I remain to be convinced.:(

[Muggle]

Search for a cache on gc.com using the keyword "Wal-Mart" produces no less than 67 results.

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?key=wal-mart

Remove the hyphen and you get another 27. Two of which are mine. Neither of which are in/at/or near Wal-Mart.

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?key=walmart (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?key=walmart)

a.

[nobbynobbs]

Now why has this not occurred to me before?

A simple solution to the problem, We go European on them. Simply publish your cache in a European language of your choice and therefore immediate fall off the map as far as america are concerned.:rolleyes:

I would love to think that a lesson has been learned but I have serious doubts. I have the greatest sympathy for Deci as he's left trying to sort it all out and facing the flak ( no dig intended Dave and Peter, fullly understand and agree with what you did).

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Now why has this not occurred to me before?

A simple solution to the problem, We go European on them. Simply publish your cache in a European language of your choice and therefore immediate fall off the map as far as america are concerned.:rolleyes:

I would love to think that a lesson has been learned but I have serious doubts. I have the greatest sympathy for Deci as he's left trying to sort it all out and facing the flak ( no dig intended Dave and Peter, fullly understand and agree with what you did).

Why go European :eek:? Just submit a Geocelc there would be no complaints then :D, There are already several in the UK :applause:

For the uninitiated Geocelc [English phonetically Geokelk] is the what is becoming the accepted Welsh for Geocaching :socool:

And just for the record, so that there is no misunderstanding. I fully supported and continue to do so, the decision taken by Peter and Dave

[FollowMeChaps]

Ah, I was dissapointed that Geocelc isn't a sort of Welsh version of Franglaise :dunno: - that would have been fun.
the link (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=3ac32a53-ce1f-4059-8648-4ae7def9be4a)

[Lactodorum]

Anyone up for translating a cache description into Welsh for me? I can easily pop over the border to place a new cache and it would be an interesting exercise. :socool:

[T.R.a.M.P.]

Anyone up for translating a cache description into Welsh for me? I can easily pop over the border to place a new cache and it would be an interesting exercise. :socool:
Hunrhywun i fyny achos yn cyfieithu a cache darluniad i mewn i Cymraeg ata? Alla 'n esmwyth pop ar 'r ffinia at chyflea a 'n grai cache a bai an yn diddori ymarfer

...was the output from http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=English&to=Welsh

Now is it any good?:p

I just tried translating the above back the other way through the software. Hmmm interesting...:rolleyes:

[Lactodorum]

Interesting translation of "cache" :eek: I don't think I'll be using that service thanks ;)

[Belplasca]

I do have a friend who gets called up by local radio stations whenever they need a tame Welsh speaker...

What's the urgency? I don't see her that often...

Bob

[keehotee]

LOl - if you're getting the same translation as me the cache sounds like it would be s*&t - and far too many ' heartburn soft pop signs ' (whatever they are.......)

[The Hornet]

Oh there's no urgency, it was just a vague idea. And Keehotee, yes, that's the translation I was getting. :eek:

By the way, you may have noticed that I'm now posting under my caching name rather than the old policeman. I felt it was more appropriate now and to avoid any suspicion that Lacto might still be active.

[nobbynobbs]

So I think I've got a spanish-english dictionary and maybe a french-english.

shouldn't take too long to work out a translation for the next cache I place. If the americans can't read it they can't complain about it :)

[keehotee]

My ex-landlord left behind a huge box of books when he left the house - and when we bought it we inherited them.
He was Iranian - so if anybody want one of the half dozen or so English - Arabic dictionarys we have, you're welcome to one (or would an Arabic description of a mysterious hidden box attract extra scrutiny???)

[Bill D (wwh)]

Just don't label the cache container in Arabic...! :ph34r: :p :D

[Gushoneybun]

Interesting translation of "cache" :eek: I don't think I'll be using that service thanks ;)

Thanks for the laugh, I translated it to Welsh and then back :D obviously not condoning such things but it made me smile.

[T.R.a.M.P.]

Thanks for the laugh, I translated it to Welsh and then back :D obviously not condoning such things but it made me smile.
Yup, that's what I did :D;):p
- or as they say buggrit, buggrem, millenium hand and shrimp!

[paul.blitz]

Section C of the constitution is only part of what GAGB's remit should be and is weakly worded: voluntarily toothless. Landowner negotiation is just one facet of governance. Section C is self-evidently no longer fit for purpose, having no subscription (and making this an objective) is self-defeating. The rest of the constitution is organisational verbiage and essentially irrelevant to this discussion.



I think it's worth explaining some GAGB history / old politics, which may help put things into perspective.

At the time, there was a lot of politics flying around (no change there then!) and GAGB was originally conceived by Tim & June and a small group of "early" cachers. The politics meant that T&J handed the GAGB off "to the public"... so when we were writing the constitution, there was both a need for "appeasement" of the creators, plus trying to make a blatently non-commercial organisation, whose basic aim was "to be the mouthpiece for geocaching in the uk"... in many ways to be to geocaching what the Ramblers Association is to rambling.

When trying to create such an organisation, what model do you use? Dictatorship? (Mary Whitehouse used this model for her "viewers association" she created many years ago, and is how a HUGE number of organisations charity work). Paid-for membership club? Free-of-charge organisation? Usually, the best one is something like "friendly dictator"... as the organiser have good control of what the organsation needs to do, but is open to input from others. But, at the time, that would NOT have worked ("what right does HE have to claim to represent ME?").

There was a MAJOR feeling that there should be no membership charge... after all "caching is free" (yeah, we know: petrol, car, GPS, PDA, wellies...... :-) ).... so not much real choice left!

Also there was a problem of knowing who people were (REAL names addresses) vs users wishing to remain anonymous ("why does GAGB NEED to have my address?")..... not easy issues for a membership organisation!

Remember that, at that time, GAGB had no remit, no real support, so we had to create an organisation that was both trying to "appeal" to cachers (so we would get members and thus be credible) but not been seen to be wanting to be a "powermongering organisation" (if we did that, we would just get accused "what right do they have to allegedly represent caching?").

So, how can a new organisation "represent" a pastime for which they have no official remit? Well, you start by inventing "cache placement RECCOMENDATIONS or GUIDELINES" (not allowed to use the word "rules"!!). You try and be available to assist cachers with probably the biggest obstacle to cache placement: negotiating with landowners.

At the time (and its still the case) GC.com does NOT formally recognise GAGB (which is the biggest shame of everything), which stops GAGB from doing so many more things.(* note)

So, GAGB has some Guidelines, it negotiates with landowners, it runs a website with forums (all at 100% zero cost to cachers [apart from the "mugs" that pay for it :-) ])... what else CAN it do, without CG.com recognition?


(* Note: I am aware that in many UK states, the job of cache checking is done by the local "caching organisation"... which means that they CAN create "cache placement RULES" etc . We were historically lucky that GAGB had a pretty good relationship with the UK reviewers, and the GAGB guidlines were drawn up with their input)


So, with all that in mind, does the GAGB need to change?.... and if so, what can it do for as long as (a) there is no formal recognition of GAGB's status by *any* caching site; (b) there would be a major uproar if GAGB were to become a "paid for" organisation; (c) we are run by "spare-timers", with limited time available to do things.

Maybe it IS time to review the remit of the GAGB... but given the typical paranoia that most cachers have, I can't really see much changing!



A bit of a meander, but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say.

Sadly (or maybe not!) I am NOT at all up-to-date with the GC.com politics (but have read a little of the recent "problems" with gc.com) so hopefully you'll accept my post for what it is meant to be: trying to give "context" to the historical creation of GAGB.



(btw: the wording for the constitution was based in a very large amount, on an nexisting model charity constitution, but adjusted to the fact that GAGB was not a charity)



Paul B

[sTeamTraen]

I apologise for bumping this thread (if that's not appropriate for this forum), but this little bit has nagged at me since I read it:


At the time (and its still the case) GC.com does NOT formally recognise GAGB (which is the biggest shame of everything), which stops GAGB from doing so many more things

I wondered why Groundspeak would not recognise the GAGB. Some terrible bust-up in the distant past? Suggestions that people might know Robin Lovelock (whoever he is)? Mongers on the committee? So I asked.

It turns out that Groundspeak does not formally recognise any geocaching associations, anywhere. I'm not sure why this is, or indeed if there is a simple reason. Maybe it's for practical reasons, maybe it's because they wouldn't want to appear un-PC if some association allowed a thread to continue in its "family-friendly" forums with references to "Gypos" and "Pikeys", maybe it's because they don't think that they should be seen to be even remotely "doing governance", maybe it doesn't advance the world domination plan. No idea.

Groundspeak generally likes the idea of associations - indeed, they have asked the forum moderators to provide a pinned thread in each "regional" (etc) forum where the local associations can post their contact details, including Web links (I presume if there isn't such a thread for the UK, it's because the GAGB is the only association and already has it's own pinned thread to itself!) - but they don't hand out seals of approval, Egon Ronay-style certificates, etc.

Perhaps they should, although that would inevitably lead to "fun and games" in areas where there are two or more geocaching associations whose only discernable difference is in their names and that they oppose each other for no obvious reason that an outsider could discern, like the People's Front of Judea (etc) from "Life of Brian". But for now, they don't.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Bump any thread you like, sTeamTraen...!

No, I realize that GS doesn't formally recognize GAGB not because of any issues with us, but because that's GS's approach to caching organizations generally. I don't know either why that's their approach, but GAGB and the GS UK cache reviewers have always had a good working relationship, so I don't really see it as a problem. There may be no official recognition, but down at ground level things work smoothly between us.

[Mongoose39uk]

snip

Mongers on the committee? So I asked.

snip.

Oi, cheek of it!

Mongers looks for MrsB to withhold Nicks biscuit privileges :p

[fraggle69]

So what's gagb's relationship with terracaching and navicache? Are things anybetter or anyworse there?
I suppose whatever portal we use, we're cachers through and through and think being represented by some form of UK body can only be a good thing.

Cheers

[fraggle69]

It turns out that Groundspeak does not formally recognise any geocaching associations, anywhere. I'm not sure why this is, or indeed if there is a simple reason. Maybe it's for practical reasons, maybe it's because they wouldn't want to appear un-PC if some association allowed a thread to continue in its "family-friendly" forums with references to "Gypos" and "Pikeys", maybe it's because they don't think that they should be seen to be even remotely "doing governance", maybe it doesn't advance the world domination plan. No idea.



Hmm I wonder how many average Americans know what a 'Pikey' is?

[lost it]

So what's gagb's relationship with terracaching and navicache? Are things anybetter or anyworse there?
I suppose whatever portal we use, we're cachers through and through and think being represented by some form of UK body can only be a good thing.

Cheers

who? :dunno:

[arock&ahardplace]

Hmm I wonder how many average Americans know what a 'Pikey' is?

Oh! I do! I do! :D

Wait a minute, I'm an American living in Britain, so does that eliminate me the average American category? :dunno: ;) :D

[fraggle69]

Oh! I do! I do! :D

Wait a minute, I'm an American living in Britain, so does that eliminate me the average American category? :dunno: ;) :D


In short I thinkk the answer to that one is... Yes ;)

[jacobite]

who? :dunno:

I did try and look up some local caches in navicache the other night. I found a couple, but it wasn't what I expected. One was placed by Magus Barelegs in 937 AD, whist on a booze cruise to Scotland with his mates. The other's currently touring The Democratic Republic of Congo in the digestive tract of a hippo, and is unlikey to be logged any time soon.

Think I'll give terracache a try!

[Happy Humphrey]

So what's gagb's relationship with terracaching and navicache? Are things anybetter or anyworse there?
I suppose whatever portal we use, we're cachers through and through and think being represented by some form of UK body can only be a good thing.

Cheers
I would assume that, as GAGB is not affiliated to Groundspeak, there's no reason to have a problem with Navicache, Terracaching or any of the others.

[fraggle69]

I would assume that, as GAGB is not affiliated to Groundspeak, there's no reason to have a problem with Navicache, Terracaching or any of the others.

I think you misunderstood where I was coming from, I want to know what form of relationship (if any) is there between terracaching/navicaching and gagb, or have gagb soley been interested in making links with gc.com?
Do gagb perceive one org to have better comms than the other. It's important stuff.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I think you misunderstood where I was coming from, I want to know what form of relationship (if any) is there between terracaching/navicaching and gagb, or have gagb soley been interested in making links with gc.com?
Do gagb perceive one org to have better comms than the other. It's important stuff.
No, we're certainly not interested only in working with GC, but though we've made approaches to TC and NC on occasion, to the best of my knowledge we've never had replies from them.

[Edgemaster]

Tbh, there isn't a sizable number of uk terra/navicachers, their systems of 'approval' don't lend to an easy way for the GAGB policies to be enforced either - terracaching uses a sponsorship method, and I'm not sure what navicaches use.

[Happy Humphrey]

I don't think Navicache uses anything as a policy. You just post your cache and that's it. Actually quite nice, but I don't think it would work once you have lots of caches appearing on the site.